- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE42
by David Kessens 26 Apr '02

26 Apr '02

Below follows the agenda for the ipv6 wg. After my request for topics on the list, I got quite some requests for topics to be covered and even some people who offered to do presentations. I am very glad that I received all these offers and I hope that we will be able to cover them all in the limited time that we have available. Due to time limitations I have dropped the 'Status of the 6bone' repport from the agenda, and due to lack of volunteers for a presentation I also dropped the 'DNS and IPv6 - issues and current BCP: draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt' topic. I hope to see you all at the meeting next week, David K. --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE42 Wednesday May 1st, 2002, 14:00 - 17:30, Amsterdam 1st slot A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. IPv6 roadmaps of network equipment vendors Juniper (Jean-Marc Uze, Elise Gerich) Cisco (Simon Pollard) C. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) D. Tunnelbrokers & ipv6 in practice (Pim van Pelt) related discussion topic: do we prefer to use 6to4 instead of tunnelbrokers ?!? 2nd slot E. IPv6 Promotion Council Activities Overview (Kosuke Ito) F. IPv6 capable RR DNS servers - what is needed, what are the issues ?!? (Joao Luis Silva Damas, RIPE NCC) G. IPv6 RR DNS - is it ip6.int or ip6.arpa? Why? Documented where? (Joao Luis Silva Damas, RIPE NCC) related topic: 6to4 reverse delegations H. IPv6 allocation survey (Mirjam Kuehne, RIPE NCC) I. Euro6IX and layer 3 IX addressing (Raffaele D'Albenzio) J. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) - French NIC initiative regarding DNSv6 deployment (Mohsen Souissi) Z. AOB ---

4 6

FWD: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by David Kessens 26 Apr '02

26 Apr '02

For your information: You might want to read the latest iteration of the 'IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy' draft before the actual discussion of the draft during the lir wg session at the RIPE meeting next week. David K. --- ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Narten <narten(a)us.ibm.com> ----- X-Delivered-For: <david(a)iprg.nokia.com> X-mProtect: <200204251156> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection X-Authentication-Warning: data.staff.apnic.net: majordom set sender to owner-global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net using -f To: global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net Subject: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 06:54:02 -0400 From: Thomas Narten <narten(a)us.ibm.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.1 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.1 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) A revised version of the IPv6 address document is now available. It incorporates feedback from the recent RIPE, APNIC and ARIN discussions, as well as many wording cleanups. It is believed that the document is consisent with the discussions held so far and the consensus calls of APNIC and ARIN. The document can be found at: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy ftp://ftp.cs.duke.edu/pub/narten/ietf/global-ipv6-assign-2002-04-25.txt Thomas - - This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo(a)lists.apnic.net ----- End forwarded message -----

3 2

Minutes of the IPv6 wg session at RIPE41
by David Kessens 26 Apr '02

26 Apr '02

Please see below for the minutes of the IPv6 wg session during RIPE41. The only changes that were made from the draft (v1) were some small corrections as requested by Mohsen Souissi on the list. Thanks, David K. --- ----------------------------- RIPE 41 Amsterdam Ipv6 Working Group Wednesday 16th January 2002 16:00 - 17:30 Chair - David Kessens 117 attendees present A Administrative Stuff Added agenda items: Status of ip6.int to ip6.arpa transition and the use of ipv6 capable nameservers for ip6.arpa B Status of the 6bone (David Kessens, http://www.kessens.com/~david/presentations/) Summary: There are now over 1000 ipv6 sites in 55 countries. Q: size definition, what is a site? A: an administrative entity that has an ipv6 network, can be very small, i.e. one machine, or a large ISP. Q: Is it necessarily the same as a site for a nla allocation? A: No! C Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering, SpaceNet AG, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-41/presentations.html#ipv6) Q: Why can't you announce 2001::16? I do this because I want to have a default free announcement. A: This does not belong to you specifically so should not be announced. Q: What is preferable? A: It should not be announced in the default free zone, there is no problem with you announcing this internally. Q: Are there invalid AS numbers in some registries i.e. the 6bone registry? A: I didn't check there, most likely they are because the 6bone registry does not check to see if an AS number is valid or invalid. Q: Are we now in the right phase to filter based on registry databases? A: I don't think so! We don't have RPSL for Ipv6. Comment: For your info, in Japan the exchanges are not exchanging routes anymore, for example NTT are charging for transit. Q: Where do you connect to for these bgp tables? A: Mainly Germany, but also some US and European sites. Q: would it be worth having a discussion regarding filtering policies for our routers in the next meeting ? Q: can you volunteer for this ? A: yep! D Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience requested) Comment: French NIC has a secondary DNS IPv6-capable server which already hosts .fr zone and other TLD zones such as .re, .es, .br and .dz. We are looking forward to do some collaboration in DNSv6 field with other European TLDs. A: Can I volunteer you to discuss this at the next meeting? A: Yep! Q: Does this mean that you do accept quad A or A6 records because there are some parts that just have it as transport to ship a query to the server and to receive the result? A: The transit of DNS messages is they need them in Ipv6 dative mode only where they are supported in OUR zone file we don't object to the use of zone files containing AS's. Global Ipv6 Summit Madrid 13th - 14th March 2002 www.ipv6-es.com Jordi Palet gave slides to David to present Euro6IX Status. David presented the slides (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-41/presentations.html#ipv6) Q: 6link is a coordination of different v6 projects. Similar updates to Euro6IX! Z AOB Reverse Delegation in v6 I would like to talk about the slowdown of DNSv6 service deployment. There is a plan of migration from ip6.int to ip6.arpa for the IPv6 revese tree. RIRs have already asked for reverse delegation of their blocs and that has already been done. But no name server among the authoritative ones for ip6.arpa talks IPv6! In November we sent a mail to IANA hostmaster to tell them, we can also be a secondary for ip6.arpa. So far we have had no response! I am therefore concerned of willingness for deploying IPv6. Things are going well from a standardization point of view but from a practical point of view people are not encouraged! Q: We received a request from Bill reagrding the various ranges which we have passed on to the people running the ip6.arpa. Should this be in our operational area? Probably most people feel that yes it should! We are trying to do this as fast as we can.. Q: can we at ripe get independent v6 addresses A: no, not enough for everyone!!! Q: good question, where do the registries get it from? Q: Is ICANN considering using new records for the route zone? A: I don't make policy on the route zone, discussion has been made which has not yet been concluded. I will hand over to Bill.. A: testing regarding this is still ongoing, a preliminary set of recommendations still has to be tested. It is going very slow as people are being very careful. Q: does the registry process of RIPE NCC allow me to register name servers without having v4 address? A: yes Q: is there anything we can do as a community, i.e. make it clear to the ripe community that we want this? A: yes A: we can then approach Icann about this. You should be asking the RIPE NCC when we can use v6 in the name server. Conclusion Hopefully the agenda will be fuller next time, if you have any suggestions please let David know so that we can have more agenda points. It could be interesting to see a road map plan, I see we have Cisco and Juniper here so can you help me do this for next time? A: Yep! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: IPv6 assignments to DNS root servers in the RIPE region
by Guy Davies 24 Apr '02

24 Apr '02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Gert, I think what Joao was suggesting was that if the nameserver had been in NASA's v6 block, then rapid renumbering would have made it viable to demand the whole block back from NASA when the nameserver was shutdown. While this is nice in theory, I tend to agree with Randy that it is not very likely in reality for a huge organisation like NASA. Regards, Guy > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:56 PM > To: Randy Bush > Cc: Joao Luis Silva Damas; lir-wg(a)ripe.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: IPv6 assignments to DNS root servers in the RIPE > region > > > hi, > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 08:50:05AM -0400, Randy Bush wrote: > > > No, NASA should probably not return their IPv4 space. > With IPv6 you > > > can do it right, so why not do it right? > > > > oh, i forgot ipv6's rapid renumbering. i also forgot santa > claus and > > the tooth fairy. > > Huh? What does this have to do with anything? > > This proposal is about NOT changing IPv6 root name server > addresses, and > NOT about "easy renumbering". > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 44543 > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.1 iQA/AwUBPMauCY3dwu/Ss2PCEQLfkwCg7upE2tAaEQ2GoHjIlRwwIEkLez8AoMjD X24zM7WSw2QARZm0DFdvnnCx =WbDK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If misdirected, please notify us by telephone and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any information contained in it. We use reasonable endeavors to virus scan all e-mails leaving the Company but no warranty is given that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. You should undertake your own virus checking. The right to monitor e-mail communications through our network is reserved by us.

4 3

RE: IPv6 assignments to DNS root servers in the RIPE region
by Guy Davies 24 Apr '02

24 Apr '02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > In message > <C653AC166708D51195D600034723D865075BBB(a)cain.telindus.co.uk>, Guy > Da vies writes: > > >Hi Gert, > > > >I think what Joao was suggesting was that if the nameserver had > >been in NASA's v6 block, then rapid renumbering would have made it > >viable to demand the whole block back from NASA when the > >nameserver was shutdown. While this is nice in theory, I tend to > >agree with Randy that it is not very likely in reality for a huge > >organisation like NASA. > > As I read it, it means that the root-server will get its own > allocation, and that allocation follows the rootserver around. That's the original discussion point. However, there's a little throwaway comment in one of Joao's subsequent emails in which he says... "No, NASA should probably not return their IPv4 space. With IPv6 you can do it right, so why not do it right?". To me, that implies that you can force an organisation like NASA to return *all* their v6 space and renumber in this kind of situation. > Sounds surprisingly reasonable to me. For the initial discussion point, yes. For the subsequent point, above, absolutely not. Guy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.1 iQA/AwUBPMavqo3dwu/Ss2PCEQJL/wCfRGx6hetMOJqPCh/+d/thPLA9dssAn0y3 1KYq6bIEy0YhVED7SbjmdxTV =0hrB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If misdirected, please notify us by telephone and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any information contained in it. We use reasonable endeavors to virus scan all e-mails leaving the Company but no warranty is given that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. You should undertake your own virus checking. The right to monitor e-mail communications through our network is reserved by us.

1 0

RE: IPv6 assignments to DNS root servers in the RIPE region
by matthew.ford＠bt.com 24 Apr '02

24 Apr '02

I couldn't agree more. The only conceivable objection to the proposal is that it potentially sets a precedent that will be used to trash the IPv6 routing heirarchy. Given carefully worded policy, that precedent need not be set. Mat. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: 24 April 2002 13:55 > To: Randy Bush > Cc: Joao Luis Silva Damas; lir-wg(a)ripe.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: IPv6 assignments to DNS root servers in the RIPE region > > > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 08:44:44AM -0400, Randy Bush wrote: > > > Seriously now. I strongly believe that if a root server > were to stop > > > operations, it would be in everyone's benefit that either > the address > > > space where it is hosted moves with it OR **the address > space which > > > it was using is returned** > > > > nope. should nasa return 128.8 just because the server is > moved from > > 128.8.10.90? i don't think so. but, if it is moved, they > should not > > put anything else at 128.8.10.90 for a decade or two. > > Which makes you agree with Joao, doesn't it? The way it was done with > 128.8 obviously created problems, which would mean that > "special networks > for root name servers" might be a good thing after all... > > Lacking experience with root name server operations, I didn't comment > the whole proposal yet, and I'm still not sure what is "the > right thing > to do". > > Let's turn it around - which of both approaches would be "the > wrong thing > to do", and why? > > Having special-case networks for every other purpose is clearly a bad > thing, but I think most would agree that root name server > *are* special > because that's the only thing you cannot (completely) put into DNS... > > With the number of root name servers, I don't see any major issues due > to address wastage or enormous numbers of additional routes. > > Just my $0.2... > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 44543 > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 >

1 0

Good morning
by Pim van Pelt 22 Apr '02

22 Apr '02

Dear wg members, This is Pim van Pelt with Business Internet Trends in the Netherlands. I have been active in the IPv6 scene since 1996 and am currently in the process of helping Dutch ISP companies take their first steps onto the IPv6 Internet at AMS-(v6)-IX. I'll be attending the RIPE42 meeting due to its sequencenumber and would very much like to introduce myself to the current members and in the process bring to your attention two topics. The first is a request from David. He's asked me to explain a bit about one of my IPv6 related projects called IPng.nl - a tunnelbroker which is open to the public. I hear that many individuals and companies wishing to hook up to the 6bone (only) know of the FreeNet tunnelbroker. Somehow it is a 'preferred' access point for many, but there are alternatives for Europe and the RIPE region. I'd like to discuss some tunnelbroker activity on a larger-than-IPng.nl scale with some other IPv6 operators. Second, I'm going to write a document describing a step by step 'howto' for (dutch) ISPs wanting to hook up with 6bone or request an sTLA but who might be in need of a jumpstart and practical pointers. The ultimate goal of this project is to send a mailing to all of the ams-ix members inviting their engineers to a handson course, held at the Kruislaan. I would like to do this in collaboration with the RIPE-NCC and the AMS-IX o NOC, and have found Ted Lindgren from NLNet Labs, Hans Leemans from the NLIP and Michiel Leenaars from the ISOC willing to help me with this project. I will present my ideas on both topics during the WG session and hope to meet you there. groet, Pim van Pelt -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim(a)ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment -----------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: Draft minutes of the IPv6 wg session at RIPE41
by Mohsen Souissi 15 Apr '02

15 Apr '02

Oops ! Sorry David, I react a bit late but please let me do it anyway even if my comments may not be taken into account. These comments which will be placed below in their context are related to what I am supposed to have said at RIPE Meeting 41 :-) On 28 Mar, David Kessens wrote: | | Please see below for the first draft version of the minutes of | the IPv6 wg session during RIPE41. | | Please take a look at it and report typos, errors and omissions. | | The minutes (with possible minor corrections) will be declared final | if I receive no comments and/or only minor typographical errors by | Friday April 12th, 2002. | | Thanks, | | David K. | --- | | ----------------------------- | | RIPE 41 | Amsterdam | Ipv6 Working Group | Wednesday 16th January 2002 16:00 - 17:30 | Chair - David Kessens | 117 attendees present | | [...] | | D Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond | (input from the audience requested) | | Comment: DNS deployment in IPv6 and support of v6 in DNS, we have a | secondary server in Spain, if other European countries | (outside Spain) are interested in supporting DNS/IPv6 maybe | we could arrange some collaboration. | ==> I said (meant) : "We (French NIC) have a secondary DNS IPv6-capable server which already hosts .fr zone and other TLD zones such as .re, .es, .br and .dz. We are looking forward to do some collaboration in DNSv6 field with other European TLDs. | A: Can I volunteer you to discuss this at the next meeting? | A: Yep! | | [...] | | Z AOB | | Reverse Delegation in v6 | | I would like to talk about the slow down of services offered. There | is a plan of migration, rir's asked for reverse delegation which was | done. We can see that v6 arpa have none of them! In November we sent | a mail to Iana hostmasters to tell them, we can also be a secondary | for arpa, so far we have had no response! I am therefore concerned | of willingness for v6, things are going well but people are not | encouraged! ==> This paragraph which attempted to translate what I said should be read this way : I would like to talk about the slow down of DNSv6 service deployment. There is a plan of migration from ip6.int to ip6.arpa for the IPv6 revese tree. RIRs have already asked for reverse delegation of their blocs and that has already been done. But no name server among the authoritative ones for ip6.arpa talks IPv6 ! In November we sent a mail to IANA hostmaster to tell them, we can also be a secondary for ip6.arpa. So far we have had no response! I am therefore concerned of willingness for deploying IPv6. Things are going well from a standardization point of view but from a practicle point of view people are not encouraged! | [...] | | Q: is there anything we can do as a community, i.e. make it clear to | the ripe community that we want this? | A: yes | A: we can then approach Icann about this. You should be asking the | RIPE NCC when we can use v6 in the name server. | | Conclusion | | Hopefully the agenda will be fuller next time, if you have any | suggestions please let David know so that we can have more agenda | points. | | It could be interesting to see a road map plan, I see we have Cisco | and Juniper here so can you help me do this for next time? | A: Yep! | Regards, Mohsen. -- Mohsen Souissi *********************************************************************** * AFNIC - http://www.nic.fr * ***************************************+******************************* * Tel. : +33 1 39 30 83 40 | Fax : +33 1 39 30 83 01 * *--------------------------------+------------------------------------* * Immeuble International - 2, rue Stephenson - Montigny le Bretonneux * * 78181 Saint Quentin en Yvelines Cedex, France * ***********************************************************************

1 0

raw ipv6 sockets - sin6_scope_id field
by user user 08 Apr '02

08 Apr '02

hello, what should be filled in the sin6_scope_id field of the sockaddr_in6 structure ? Is it the interface index ? If yes, how do I determine the interface index of my ethernet card ? ifconfig says: Scope:Link ------ I need it bcoz I'm trying to send a msg over raw ipv6 sockets and the sendto() function gives the following error at run-time: invalid argument ------- Does anyone know of pointers to example programs for ipv6 raw sockets ? waiting for QUICK responses, thanks in advance. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

2 1

Summary of IPv6 Policy Discussions at RIPE41
by James Aldridge 27 Feb '02

27 Feb '02

With apologies for the time that it's taken me to get this posted to the list, here is an attempt to summarise the discussions which took place among the approx. 180 people attending the Local IR working group at RIPE41 on 16th January 2002. Although many of those attending the working group had read the published draft, | IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy | Draft of December, 22 2001 | Version 2001-12-22 | APNIC | ARIN | RIPE - NCC we started this session with a presentation by Mirjam Kuehne from the RIPE NCC (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-41/presentations/ipv6-mir/) which summarised the main points of the current document. Most of the discussion centered on section 5.2 of the draft related to the Initial Allocation Criteria and Initial Allocation Size | 5.2.1. Initial allocation criteria | | A requesting organization can receive an initial allocation by | demonstrating that it has an immediate (i.e., within next three | months) requirement for at least a /36 prefix. That is, immediately | after the allocation, the organization will have 776 or more sites in | need of address assignments. 776 is the number of /48 address blocks | that can be assigned out of a /36 address block to achieve an HD- | Ratio of 0.8. The HD-Ratio is an address allocation utilization | metric proposed in RFC 3194 as an adaptation of the H-Ratio | originally defined in [RFC1715]. (See also Section 5.3.3.) | | [Note: discussion is needed as to whether justification for need of a | /36 is reasonable initial starting point, or whether the criteria of | an immediate need to address 776 sites is too high. Note also, that | once a request for an initial allocation has been granted, the | minimum allocation (i.e., /32) is provided, even though the requestor | has not justified a need for such a large amount of space.] The general consensus at the meeting was that this placed too high a barrier to registries at a time when getting real IPv6 deployment underway was seen as becoming more urgent. Several alternatives were discussed, but the one which seemed to achieve almost complete consensus from those at the meeting involved dropping the "776 or more sites" and HD-Ratio requirements completely. The proposal can be summarised as: "For a limited period (no more than the first 2000 allocations in each RIR area was suggested), a requesting registry (either a LIR or NIR in the draft's terminology) would receive a /32 minimum allocation from the appropriate RIR on the documentation of at least one /48 assignment." This is just one way of removing the barrier imposed in the current draft... there are, of course, other possibilities which weren't discussed at the meeting. This lowers the barrier to whatever policies the RIRs have in place for the establishment of new local or national registries. The aim was seen as being to obtain global consensus based on the current draft as an *interim* policy, with final policy being worked on as experience was gained during the "2000*3 allocations" period. Time was such that discussion of other sections of the draft were only covered briefly, if at all. James Aldridge (Co-chair, RIPE LIR WG)

1 0